Stiffen Lobby, Campaign Finance Laws

April 26, 1993|The Morning Call

Pennsylvanians have two good reasons for wondering whether Harrisburg lawmakers are working for them. First, there are no spending or contribution limits for politicians running for state office. Second, the state's lax lobbying laws make it almost impossible to gauge who is influencing the legislative process.

Historically, efforts to stiffen lobbying and campaign finance laws go nowhere in Harrisburg. It's time for that to change. Shortly before the Legislature broke for its Easter recess three western Pennsylvania representatives introduced a package of bills to strengthen lobbying and campaign finance laws.

Awaiting lawmakers are workers' compensation reform and the state budget -- two prime examples of why it's important to know who's helping to shape Pennsylvania's public policies. Business interests, the medical community, insurance companies and organized labor all want to protect their interests in the workers' compensation system. Everyone wants a piece of the budget. But how indebted are lawmakers to any of the various interests? How much effort are special interests pumping into the public debate? It's hard to tell.

Key among the bills is one proposed by Rep. Thomas Michlovic, D-35th District, which would require greater discloser by lobbyists not only of what they spend to entertain and educate lawmakers, but also who they work for, what issues they pursue and what political action committees they're affiliated with. The bill would define lobbyists as anyone spending more than $1,000 lobbying in a six month period. Lobbyists would have to report anything worth $50 or more given to lawmakers.

Rep. Michlovic introduced a similar measure two years ago without success. Since then his legislation has gone through some alterations. While his bill includes a definition for who is considered "immediate family" it contains no requirements for reporting gifts to members of legislators' families or restrictions on the activities of relatives. Considering that House Speaker H. William DeWeese's wife is a lobbyist (as is the husband of Allentown Rep. Karen Ritter), it's clear such provisions are needed.

Still, the bill would be an improvement, as would proposals by Reps. Allen Kukovich, D-56th District, and David Levdansky, D-39th District, on campaign financing. Rep. Levdansky's bill would set limits on PAC campaign contributions and cap election spending. Rep. Kukovich's legislation would establish a voluntary $2.50 checkoff on state income tax forms to create a public fund for candidates seeking statewide offices.

Speaker DeWeese is a co-sponsor on the checkoff bill but his support is even more critical on the lobbying and campaign spending limit bills. He has every reason for wanting to make sure the public has confidence that the legislative process is open and above board. This can only happen by letting the public know the extent of lobbyists' investment in legislation. It is equally necessary to limit politicians' indebtedness to PACs.

Before turning their backs on these bills, legislative leaders should reflect on how widespread the public's interest is in these issues. They thumbed their noses at the public last week by increasing their per diem allowances. Meaningful campaign spending and lobby disclosure laws would help remove public anger over their selfishness.